Johannesburg - A Limpopo government employee accused of facilitating the R932 million personal protective equipment (PPE) procurement fraud and corruption was previously found guilty of “gross dishonesty” by the provincial Health Department.
Deputy director for purchasing Justice Nepfumbada was found guilty in 2016 for “deliberately submitting an unlawful report” recommending the appointment of a service provider whose bid was officially rejected by the evaluation committee, according to the disciplinary hearing report obtained by the Sunday Independent.
He was previously charged with corruption but cleared after he allegedly demanded a “donation” from a service provider and threatened to remove her from the department’s database unless she obliged.
Nepfumbada, who was the chairperson of the bid evaluation committee at the time, had been “charged with misconduct of gross dishonesty in that on or about February 2015 at or near 18 College Street, Department of Health Building in Polokwane, in your capacity as bid evaluation chairperson, you deliberately submitted an unlawful report to the office of Acting Chief Financial Officer recommending the approval for the appointment of Gizara Car Wash and Cleaning Services whereas the bid evaluation committee rejected that submission, while you knew or ought to have known that it was unlawful to do so”.
He was found guilty by an internal disciplinary hearing in May 2016.
It is not clear how the Limpopo Department of Health allowed Nepfumbada, who was later accused of manipulating PPE procurement processes and fiddling with banking details of some service providers, to remain within the supply chain management and finance division.
Nepfumbada referred all questions to provincial Health spokesperson, Neil Shikwambana, who confirmed the employee’s charges and guilty verdict.
“Nepfumbada was found guilty of gross dishonesty and violation of the SCM process. The independent chairperson of the disciplinary process then recommended the following sanctions; one month suspension without salary; a final written warning.
“The department transferred him from demand and acquisition unit to asset management, later logistics management. Though he is in the finance section, he is no longer in the demand and acquisition unit but logistics management,” Shikwambana said.
Nepfumbada was also charged with three other counts including corruption, contravening policy on bid evaluation and intimidation. However, he was cleared.
The corruption charge related to allegations that he had demanded a kickback from one of the department’s service providers, saying he was “the one that is making them get work from the department”. According to the report, Nepfumbada had allegedly demanded a “donation” from Tzaneen Country Lodge marketing manager, Enny Mashatola, and threatened to remove the service provider from the department’s database unless he received the money.
In her testimony, the report said, Mashatola told the hearing that Nepfumbada had invited her to his office on August 5, 2015.
“She testified that she visited him at office number 32, and he introduced himself as Mr Justice Nepfumbada, who is making them get business from the department. The employee asked for a donation for Nehawu. It is the witness’ version that the employee continuously called her using the cell number 0827836147.
“The witness further testified that she did not give the donation as requested until the employee threatened to remove her company from the department database. The witness reported the matter to the department and the matter was subsequently reported to the South African Police Service,” read part of the report.
Nepfumbada denied having spoken to Mashatola, saying his colleague, a certain Mr Matlou, was the one who requested the donation.
Matlou testified in support of Nepfumbada, saying he was the one who contacted Mashatola with a landline, a version disputed by the service provider.
This resulted in “two conflicting versions”, the report stated, resulting in the chairperson of the disciplinary committee failing to determine which one was “probable”.
“I do not think it is worthwhile for me to make a determination of which of the two versions is probable. The department has a duty to prove its case. Even if I accept the version of the department, the evidence by Ms Mashatola is not sufficient to prove a misconduct of corruption. It is Mr Mashatola’s evidence that Mr Nepfumbada requested donation for Nehawu. Mr Nepfumbada did not request the donation for him to do or not to do something for Ms Mashatola, as required by the act (Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004) for him to be considered having committed the misconduct of corruption. Therefore, the department did not manage to prove a misconduct of corruption as defined in the act,” the report added.
The count of intimidation related to allegations made by Mashatola that in subsequent calls, Nepfumbada “indicated that if she does not give the requested Nehawu donation, he would remove her company from the company from the department database,” a claim the employee denied.
“Mr Nepfumbada denied having called Ms Mashatola. He further indicated that the cell number which Ms Mashatola uses belongs to Mr Kumkani of Tzaneen. It must be mentioned that Ms Mashatola could not admit or deny that the said cell number belongs to Mr Kumkani. It therefore remained [a] disputed fact that Mr Nepfumbada called Ms Mashatola on the said cell number.
“The department did not lead evidence to prove that the said cell number belongs to Mr Nepfumbada and [that] indeed he called Ms Mashatola. The department did not manage to prove the misconduct of intimidation against the employee.”